Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Two Shuttles Prepped For Launch At Once - Oct 2008  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

On October 8, 2009, Atlantis will conduct the final Hubble Space Telescope repair mission from KSC's pad LC-39A. However, as ISS will not be accessible in case of emergency, Endeavour will be ready for immediate launch from neighboring LC-39B. (Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 9, 2008)

My question is — is this the first time two Space Shuttles have been ready for launch simultaneously?

Will anyone who will be in the area at the time be able to get photos of what must be an extremely unique event?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

I know I have seen photos of two on the pads, but I don't think the plan was to launch them at the same time.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5277 times:



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
My question is — is this the first time two Space Shuttles have been ready for launch simultaneously?

No:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/STS31_carries_Hubble_to_orbit_edit.jpg

STS-400



Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

I'm not sure which is better:
That NASA routinely sends (with 2 sad exceptions) the Shuttle out to space and back on a fairly regular basis; or that they can have 2 complete ships and crews ready to do said effort. I have a lot of issues with NASA, but I can't help but to feel proud for them every time they launch and recover.

SASD209


User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Have they ever had two in space at the same time?

User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5151 times:



Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 4):
Have they ever had two in space at the same time?

No, not to my knowledge, as far as I know the main issue being that the control room in Huston was designed to handle one flight at a time, though I imagine they have a plan in case they have to launch the rescue flight and I'd be very curious to know how they plan to handle the situation if (God forbid) they have to rescue a damaged shuttle crew. double work for every engineer or double engineers-per-station?



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3747 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5148 times:

What kind of timescale would it take toget the second one airborne if needed?

Is it going to be fueled up on the pad? Can it launch anytime or does it still have to wait for a launch window?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5140 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6):
Is it going to be fueled up on the pad?

Shuttles are always fueled on the pad a few hours prior to the launch, except for the SRBs, obviously.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6):
Can it launch anytime or does it still have to wait for a launch window?

They will have to get into a launch window and hope the weather is go for launch, I imagine the rescue mission being a planning nightmare!



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5130 times:



Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 5):
No, not to my knowledge, as far as I know the main issue being that the control room in Huston was designed to handle one flight at a time, though I imagine they have a plan in case they have to launch the rescue flight and I'd be very curious to know how they plan to handle the situation if (God forbid) they have to rescue a damaged shuttle crew. double work for every engineer or double engineers-per-station?

In the 60s, there were multiple complete sets of Mission Control staff. I know with Gemini 6/7 (which WERE in space together) they had two of the three crews working simultaneously in separate rooms.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
In the 60s, there were multiple complete sets of Mission Control staff. I know with Gemini 6/7 (which WERE in space together) they had two of the three crews working simultaneously in separate rooms.

True, I was just talking about the Shuttle program in this context, as I understood the question being asked about the Space Shuttle. I was wondering how they would organize the tasks in the control room in case of two vehicles in orbit at the same time.

BTW, more basic info about STS-400 (the rescue mission) can be found on the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-400

[Edited 2008-06-13 04:52:41]


If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3747 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5104 times:



Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 7):
Shuttles are always fueled on the pad a few hours prior to the launch, except for the SRBs, obviously.

Ok.

I didn't formulate my question right, though. I was wondering whether they can stay fueled up on the pad for extended amounts of time, as I believe they usually fuel them right before the launch.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDODCFR From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

What if the damaged launch pad isn't repaired by then?

User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5047 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 10):
Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 7):
Shuttles are always fueled on the pad a few hours prior to the launch, except for the SRBs, obviously.

Ok.

I didn't formulate my question right, though. I was wondering whether they can stay fueled up on the pad for extended amounts of time, as I believe they usually fuel them right before the launch.

Oh, allright  Smile

In case of need, the rescue flight is set to launch 10 days after the contingency (a.k.a. mishap), so they should start fuel transfer the launch day, as they normally do on other flights. I don't have precise knowledge about the maximum time the central tank can stay fueled on the ground, but I bet they want it to be the shortest possible time.



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5042 times:



Quoting DODCFR (Reply 11):
What if the damaged launch pad isn't repaired by then?

Since both pads are operable, I would imagine they would in that case reverse which one is intended to be the active pad.

And after this, LC-39B is to be taken offline for conversion to Ares. If LC-39A is deemed to be that damaged, maybe they should convert that one first...



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4961 times:



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
My question is — is this the first time two Space Shuttles have been ready for launch simultaneously?

Yes, more or less. There have been Shuttles on both pads at the same time on many occasions, but this will be the first time both Shuttles are essentially ready for launch at the same time.

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 4):
Have they ever had two in space at the same time?

No. It's a manpower issue. The narrowest gap between two Shuttle flights was one week between STS-71 and STS-70 in 1995. The Galileo and Ulysses flights in May 1986 were to be only a few days apart, but the schedule was revamped after the Challenger accident.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 6):
What kind of timescale would it take toget the second one airborne if needed?

It will have a normal countdown... about four days. But the planning is for launch to be 7 days after LON (launch on need) is called up.

Quoting DODCFR (Reply 11):
What if the damaged launch pad isn't repaired by then?

They'll delay launch until both pads can support launches, possibly shifting 125 to Pad B, but they don't want to launch from B unless they have to (A is more up to date) and since 400 (126) has to be ready a week after 125, switching to B doesn't buy very much time.

Yesterday, NASA said they expect Pad A to be ready in time for the Hubble launch.


User currently offlineMark5388916 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

If they had to launch STS-400 could they run the rescue mission out of the cape and the main mission out of Houston?

Mark



I Love ONT and SNA, the good So Cal Airports! URL Removed as required by mod
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4839 times:



Quoting Mark5388916 (Reply 15):
If they had to launch STS-400 could they run the rescue mission out of the cape and the main mission out of Houston?

I think the emergency Mission Control is at the TDRS control center at White Sands. They could do some things out of there or out of the Cape, but not higher-level things like rendezvous and docking.

If memory serves, they'll fly both missions out of Houston, but the disabled Shuttle will be put on 'caretaker' status with only minimal support. That's the way they handled Gemini 7 and 6 in 1965.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4829 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 16):
If memory serves, they'll fly both missions out of Houston, but the disabled Shuttle will be put on 'caretaker' status with only minimal support. That's the way they handled Gemini 7 and 6 in 1965.

This is not true at all (re: Gemini 7/6). If you read Gene Kranz' bio, there were two flight crews working at the same time in different rooms.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4815 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 17):
This is not true at all (re: Gemini 7/6). If you read Gene Kranz' bio, there were two flight crews working at the same time in different rooms.

The official NASA history, "On the Shoulders of Titans" says differently.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/toc.htm

"Kraft came back from lunch with Low and outlined the gist of the proposal to his staff. The men in John Hodge's Flight Control Division found it "a hell of a great challenge and to a man they wanted to press on as soon as possible." One of them suddenly said, "Why don't we handle it as if one of the spacecraft were a Mercury-type and the other a Gemini-type spacecraft?" Mercury controllers at the tracking stations observed data on their consoles, summarized it, and forwarded the result by teletype to Mercury Control Center. Gemini VII could be handled that way while it served as a passive target for Gemini VI. For Gemini missions, the stations were fitted with computer communications processors. As the spacecraft passed overhead, the processors interrogated the appropriate systems for specific data, which were automatically transmitted to Mission Control. Gemini VI, the active partner in the rendezvous, would be controlled by the more sophisticated system. With this as a basis, an operational mode was laid out.

After Gemini VII lifted off, flight control would be carried out in the normal manner while the pad was being prepared for the second launch. Once the flight controllers were sure the orbiting spacecraft was operating properly, Mission Control would concentrate on Schirra and Stafford in their spacecraft, and the tracking network would watch Gemini VII, record data, and send information by teletype to the Houston controllers. This mode would continue until the complicated rendezvous mission ended and Gemini VI-A (so called to distinguish it from the originally planned mission whose objective had been rendezvous with Agena) returned to Earth. Then Gemini VII would become the focus of communications again. Kraft was soon convinced that the operation could be carried out safely. He told his Mission Planning and Analysis Division to set up the flight plan so the second launch could take place as soon as the pad was ready."


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4687 times:

Will Endevour have the STS-126 payload installed when it's standing by?
And, is there any sort of autoland capability so if they abandon a shuttle at Hubble or the station they can try to land it unmanned?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4672 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 19):
Will Endevour have the STS-126 payload installed when it's standing by?
And, is there any sort of autoland capability so if they abandon a shuttle at Hubble or the station they can try to land it unmanned?

No and yes.

The 126 payload will be installed at Pad A after Endeavour rolls around from Pad B after LON is stood-down, that's why 126 doesn't launch until November.

Autoland requires the crew to implement some "hot wiring" for either destructive de-orbit or attempted unmanned landing, depending on the serverity of the problem.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4419 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 10):
I was wondering whether they can stay fueled up on the pad for extended amounts of time, as I believe they usually fuel them right before the launch.

Not really. The fuels boil off and have to be replenished.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 19):
And, is there any sort of autoland capability so if they abandon a shuttle at Hubble or the station they can try to land it unmanned?

Yes, sure can be done. As was stated, the crew has to install a cable from the space/ground transceiver to the flight controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx#Remote_Control_Orbiter

NS


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4373 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 21):
The fuels boil off and have to be replenished.

The downside of cryogenic fuels. Interestingly, the Soviet R-7 (which, in a modified form, is still going strong as the launch vehicle for the Soyuz capsules) was originally designed as an ICBM, but failed at that task due the fact that since it used cryogenic fuels, it couldn't be kept at the ready for any long period of time, something necessary for an ICBM. So it just went on to become the most-used space booster in history.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

Thanks for the link Gigneil.
It would be interesting to see if NASA decided to go ahead with the Hubble job if launch damage required Atlantis to be abandoned. That kind of distraction you definitely wouldn't need while working on the telescope, but there wouldn't be any hard reason not to get the job done while waiting for your ride.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4256 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 23):
It would be interesting to see if NASA decided to go ahead with the Hubble job if launch damage required Atlantis to be abandoned. That kind of distraction you definitely wouldn't need while working on the telescope, but there wouldn't be any hard reason not to get the job done while waiting for your ride.

No. They'll go into emergency mode: minimum power use, etc., to stretch consumables as long as possible (in case the LON Shuttle can't launch on time for whatever reason.)

EVAs waste a lot of O2, so no spacewalks until transfer to the LON Shuttle.


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4169 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 24):
hey'll go into emergency mode: minimum power use, etc., to stretch consumables as long as possible

That would have been obvious if I'd bothered to think about it. But, thinking before I type has never been one of my handicaps.
I hope Endevour's rescue mission remains in the "what if" category. A friend of mine is pretty excited about the ACS being repaired, although, I'm not exactly sure what it can do that WFC3 won't be able to do better. WFC3's infrared and ultraviolet channels overlap so it can cover three octaves in much greater resolution than the ACS or NICMOS, although it doesn't go as far into the infrared as NICMOS. I get the feeling that WFC3 and COS will be getting most of the time.
With new batteries and gyros with the breaking wire problem fixed, here's hoping the old girl has another ten years of action left in her.



Andy Goetsch
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Two Shuttles Prepped For Launch At Once - Oct 2008
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:03:23 by Keesje
Five Aerobatic Teams At 2008 Quebec City Airshow posted Fri Dec 28 2007 20:03:29 by CYQL
Falcon I Launch Scrubbed For Today posted Tue Mar 20 2007 01:22:45 by ZANL188
Two B1B Bombers At ORD posted Tue Aug 22 2006 06:23:59 by MesaMXORD
Turkey Shortlists Two For $2B Attack Helo Order posted Sat Jul 1 2006 01:18:46 by AirRyan
AFR At Andrews Trading C-141C For KC-135R posted Tue Oct 14 2003 00:06:23 by B1C17L1011
Looking For At Certain B-2 Picture posted Sun Mar 16 2003 18:26:27 by Soren-a
Misplaced Wings No Sweat For DARPA's New FCS posted Thu Jun 12 2008 12:08:50 by TGIF
Stationed At Rhein/Main Air Base (FRA) posted Wed Jun 11 2008 08:15:52 by Samsrheinmain
Rafale For UAE? posted Thu Jun 5 2008 15:17:43 by JPRM1

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format